Disciplinary action against police officer, supervisor over lapses in Parti Liyani case

The five-week gap between the filing of the police report by Mr Liew Mun Leong and his son and police officers visiting the scene was a breach of a legal requirement as well as police protocol.

Disciplinary action is being taken against the officer concerned as well as his supervisor, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday in his replies to Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai after he delivered a ministerial statement on the Parti Liyani case.

The delay in the police visit to the crime scene was one of the reasons for the High Court's decision in September to acquit Ms Parti of stealing from her employers.

In his judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn found that there was a break in the chain of custody of the items that were said to have been stolen. Ms Parti had packed the items into three boxes after she was fired on Oct 28, 2016.

She returned to Indonesia that night after Mr Karl Liew agreed to send the boxes to her. The next day, the boxes were opened by the Liews, who found items that they said belonged to them.

Justice Chan said it could not be proven that Ms Parti had taken the items that were eventually documented by the police because the boxes might have been interfered with while they were with the Liews.

Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said the police should have visited the scene close to the time that the police report was made on Oct 30, 2016.

The police are legally required to respond to a crime scene promptly or as soon as practicable, he said. In this case, the police went to the Liews' home only on Dec 3, 2016.

Mr Shanmugam said: "There can be no excuse for this lapse on the part of the police officer."

He added that internal investigations are being carried out in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in the case, and action will be taken as necessary.

The minister said he had asked for an explanation for the lapses and was told the investigation officer had been busy with a number of ongoing prosecutions, arrest operations and personal matters.

The officer seemed to have been under a lot of work pressure and was in a predicament, he added.

Mr Shanmugam said he has asked for a review of the workload of investigation officers, but acknowledged there was no easy solution to a manpower issue.

He also noted it is not always necessary for police to seize items when investigating cases.

However, even if the items are not seized, the police have to obtain a proper record of the evidence, such as by taking photographs of the items.

"In this case, careful photography, soon after the police report was filed, may have been good enough. But that was not done. I said, there can be no excuse," he added.

The minister also addressed a point raised by Justice Chan that Ms Parti had not been given a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter for her first four statements.

He said the police officers believed in good faith that Ms Parti understood Malay. She also chose to speak in Malay, had worked in Singapore for over 20 years, and did not ask for an interpreter during the recording.

In addition, an interpreter was provided in recording her final statement, which dealt with the majority of areas covered in the earlier statements, and when the charges were served on her.

"On that basis, her final statement is not affected by any interpretation issue," he said.

Mr Shanmugam has also asked the police to ask what language accused persons wish to speak in, and also - which they do - to explain briefly what the process entails, the purpose of the statement, and that the accused may ask for an interpreter at any time.